May I ask a question. While there is no consensus within VI WG, instead
of discussing administrative / procedural issues on how to report / respond to
the Board, why don’t we try to discuss main issues of WG disagreements one more
time?
It will be very convenient to have a short summary presentation
of WG chair. To be honest, scrolling 178 pages I’ve got an expression that this
huge piece of professional work, votes on variants, reference materials… all
this just to get around some very basic facts of conflicting interests. Should
we try to get right diagnosis at least?
Thank you!
--andrei
From:
owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf
Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 11:04 AM
To: Adrian Kinderis
Cc: tim@godaddy.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de;
cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
Let me be clear: I don't want to drag this on anymore than
anyone else.
My question is: can the Council take it upon himself to call
a WG's report final and consider its work done, even though that's not what the
WG itself has reported to us?
I'm all for executive decisions, as long as they are made
within the process that's been set for the body making them.
Stéphane Van Gelder
Directeur général / General manager
INDOM.com Noms de domaine /
Domain names
Sent from my iPad
Le 1 oct. 2010 à 03:04, Adrian Kinderis <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> a
écrit :
I believe it was “hasn’t” and “won’t” reach consensus, which is the key part here Stephane.
Let’s wind it up gang.
Adrian Kinderis
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
Sent: Friday, 1 October 2010 8:19 AM
To: tim@godaddy.com
Cc: owner-council@gnso.icann.org; KnobenW@telekom.de; cgomes@verisign.com; council@gnso.icann.org
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
I disagree. The discussion isn't on whether we end the WG or not. I was reacting to Wolf's proposed change indicating that the WG was to submit a final report by a set date, something which the WG has not confirmed to us.
The only formal communication we have from them is that they haven't reached consensus.
Stéphane Van GelderDirecteur général / General manager
INDOM.com Noms de domaine / Domain names
Sent from my iPad
Le 30 sept. 2010 à 19:35, tim@godaddy.com a écrit :I think we (the Council) have enough to go on to make a decision about it. The very fact that they are submitting a "final" report tells us that we either need to reconstitute this PDP under a new charter or end it all together. This is our call at this point, not the WGs.
Tim
From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Sender: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:32:38 +0200
To: <KnobenW@telekom.de>
Subject: Re: AW: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WG
I don't agree with your change Wolf unless it is confirmed by the WG chairs.
My understanding is the same as Chucks: they are currently in discussion with the group on next steps and nothing has been decided yet.
Stéphane
Le 30 sept. 2010 à 15:19, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
I've inserted an amendment in the "Whereas..." which reflects the co-chairs' response - as mentioned in my E-Mail earlier today and would be glad you accept this as friendly.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Gomes, Chuck
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 30. September 2010 14:37
An: Gomes, Chuck; Council GNSO
Betreff: [council] RE: Motion re. VI WGI am accepting one of Adrian’s suggested amendments to this motion as friendly and change it as highlighted in the attached file. Other suggested amendments are welcome. Note also that a second is needed.
Chuck <<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10.doc>>
_____________________________________________
From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Motion re. VI WG
<< File: Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10.doc >>
In response to the Board retreat resolution regarding VI and in order to meet the 8-day advance requirement for motions, I am submitting this motion and would appreciate a second. Please forward this to your SGs and constituencies to determine support for the motion on 7 October.
I am not opposed to other ways of accomplishing this, but thought that a motion is a clear way to kick it off.
Chuck
<Motion - VI Board Response 29 Sep 10 revised 30 Sep 10 -WUK amend.doc>